1911: .45 Automatic vs 9x19mm

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pretty much a 1911 in .45 ACP fan. It's been ingrained in me for countless years, maybe since I first became interested in handguns. For me to "downsize" from .45 to 9mm. (or .38 Super), in a full size 1911 I'm going to want to go down a bit in gun size and weight as well (i.e. from a Government Model to a Commander Model).

Kind of reminds of when years ago Browning imported SIG P220s as the Browning BDA. They were offered in .45, .38 Super, and 9mm. Bought the .45 version and it was a sweet shooting, very accurate service-style semi-auto. But when it came to the other two guns, I just couldn't see getting either one as they only carried a couple more rounds in the same platform as the .45. And those 9mm. and .38 Super versions sat on dealer's shelves for a very long time though they were probably just as good as the .45 version.

So if we're talking full size 1911 make mine a .45; if it's a .38 Super or 9mm. then a Commander will do quite nicely, thank you!
 
bannockburn said:
Pretty much a 1911 in .45 ACP fan. It's been ingrained in me for countless years, maybe since I first became interested in handguns. For me to "downsize" from .45 to 9mm. (or .38 Super), in a full size 1911 I'm going to want to go down a bit in gun size and weight as well (i.e. from a Government Model to a Commander Model).

Kind of reminds of when years ago Browning imported SIG P220s as the Browning BDA. They were offered in .45, .38 Super, and 9mm. Bought the .45 version and it was a sweet shooting, very accurate service-style semi-auto. But when it came to the other two guns, I just couldn't see getting either one as they only carried a couple more rounds in the same platform as the .45. And those 9mm. and .38 Super versions sat on dealer's shelves for a very long time though they were probably just as good as the .45 version.

So if we're talking full size 1911 make mine a .45; if it's a .38 Super or 9mm. then a Commander will do quite nicely, thank you!
Click to expand...

The original chambering of the P220 was 9mm. It was designed to replace the P210. They only developed the 45 ACP because it was popular in the US but I get your point.

earlysig001.jpg
 
It's 9mm for me simply because I shoot them so much better than the 45's. I have a Dan Wesson Guardian and Eco in 9mm and a 1911ish EDC X9 and EDC X9S (I know they're not true 1911's). I sold 2 Ruger Commander 1911's, a stainless and a light weight not because they weren't good guns, they were, but because I couldn't shoot them well. The Dan Wessons and EDC's have never had a failure of any kind with thousands of rounds through them collectively, so I'm comfortable with their reliability and the X9S is my carry gun.
 
the 9mm will have 1/2 the recoil, and shoot much farther and reliable expand hollow point, and more importantly reliably feel hollow points. My 9mm was the only 1911 I have seen that didn't need files, and time to make work right. Currently sitting around 1600 rounds without malfunction, excluding stovepipes with my CZ (115 gr at 1050fps) loads. No problems at all with standard pressure ammo. For reference, there is an approximately 1200 yard open range that allows pistol near Yakima, Wa, and you can walk down the firing area to set up targets, and actually see wide swaths of pistol bullets as they fell to the ground. 9mm tent to go another 80 yards from the 45's. 9mm goes through hard barriers better as well. That said, 45 is big, hard kicking, and has a lot more power on soft targets. For anything other than fighting in a war, i would say 9mm personally, though I do have .45, and like them. When your old the 9mm looks nicer if you plan to shoot a few hundred. My 45's leave a cut after about 100 rounds, the 9 never does.
 
I don't have to choose. I own them both, shoot them both, and like them both. Win/win.

I bought a cheap used 9mm 1911 about a year go. I've shot many hundreds of rounds through it. It has yet to malfunction.
 
WVsig said:
This statement gets my vote for the weakest statement in the entire thread so far. Pretty much all handgun calibers with the exception of a few which are not really suitable for carry in the US are minimal calibers. The idea that the 45 ACP vs 40 vs 9mm etc... is comparing minimal vs maximal is absurd.
Click to expand...

i4nklsx.jpg
 
There is no wrong answer IMO. I have only owned .45 ACP 1911's, but have shot .38 Super, 9mm, 10mm, and .50GI. My best friend has his dad's 9mm LW Commander, which I shoot as often as he lets me. He'll never sell it, nor carry it for fear of losing it to the evidence room were he to use it. It is a joy to shoot; if I run into a bunch of extra $$, I might have to get one. (I also say that about the new Pythons and many other guns....)
 
My understanding is that once you start monkeying with the basic design parameters of the 1911 is when you run into trouble.

.45ACP, all steel, single stack, full size and they are extremely reliable. Suitably modify the feed ramp and they become reliable with hollowpoints.

It's when you start making them out of different materials, making them smaller, different calibers, external extractors, etc that reliability suffers.

This is, of course, based on my own extremely unscientific research.
 
Well I own and shoot both. They are both RIA guns. My 9mm functions just as well as my 45. The full size steel frame is definitely easier on my arthritic hands/wrists in 9mm.
 
I’ve owned 1911s in 4 calibers: .22tcm, 9mm, 10mm, and .45.

The all have their place, but in a single stack I would generally choose the 10mm or .45.

That said, 9mm and .45 are basically interchangeable as long as you buy decent ammo. I wouldn’t generally choose .45 for a concealed carry gun unless living in/traveling through states with magazine or hollow point restrictions.

Taken together, that all adds up to for a carry single-stack 1911 I would choose the .45, but I’d only carry a single stack 1911 in a state where local laws removed the advantages of an equal size double stack 9, or barred hollow points.
 
Last edited:
WVsig said:
For me 1911s in 9mm are range toys not serious use guns. It has nothing to do with 9mm vs 45 as a defensive round but everything to do with 9mm in the 1911 platform. I carry an alloy BHP 80% of the time. The rest of the time it is a pocket LCP or a subcompact Sphinx SDP or Wilson EDCX9.

The window for proper function of the 1911 in 9mm is too narrow for me fir a defensive gun. The spec of the 1911 and the aspects that make it work in 45 ACP had to be severely altered to fit the 9mm into the platform.

John Travis AKA 1911tuner explained it like this on another forum.

“The OAL is too short and the tiny rim and extractor groove require heavy modification to an extractor that was designed to work with the .45 Auto's case dimensions.

Because of the extractor groove, the tip of the extractor claw is used to place tension on the case in the bottom of the extractor groove instead of the tensioning wall bearing against the rim. A little too much tension, and you get feed problems. Back off enough for reliable feed/return to bettery, and you run into extraction and.or ejectionproblems. Take enough off the claw to bring the tensioning wall into contact with the rim, and it's too short to hang onto the case and bring it out of the chamber. One of the tricky things about running a cartridge with the pressure levels of the 9mm is that the extractor has to work harder to pull it clear. Add to that a very short claw, and it gets tricky.

Finally...even with a light recoil spring...the 115 grain ammunition barely generates enough recoil impetus to drive the slide and barrel backward with authority. The 124 grain stuff is better. The 147 grain offering is better still.

That delicate balance, coupled with the too short OAL is, while a 1911 may be okay for a rangetoy...if you get one that runs...I'd never recommend carrying one for serious purpose.They can be made to run...if the wrench understands what he's doing and why...but it tries one's patience, and patience is something that I've run short of in my old age.“

This does not mean they can’t work but the odds of feeding and extraction failures are much higher in 1911s in 9mm vs any other round IMHO. I still own a few and love to shoot them I just don’t use them as defensive guns. There are better platforms for that chambered in 9mm IMHO.
Click to expand...

I thought the Commander was more suited for 9x19 than the Gov't ?
 
Also, quite frankly, as I recently heard from a trauma surgeon acquaintance... "*ALL* handgun calibers are poor manstopper's. You wanna stop someone, get a long gun. Only possible exception to that would be your service Magnums. Either way, shot placement generally trumps caliber choice."
 
Mr. Mosin said:
I thought the Commander was more suited for 9x19 than the Gov't ?
Click to expand...

It might be but I have had them be finicky in both sizes. I have had about 5 over the years. Commanders and Govts. I am not trying to bash 1911s in 9mm. I am simply stating what I have learned over the years after owning them. I am down to 2. Both run but again are fun guns not working guns.

This one is one of the nicest pistols in the safe and certainly one of the smoothest shooters. I just can remember its name. ;)

hIIFvhT.jpg

The other is a Dan Wesson Commander Valkyrie. Took a real risk on this one with an alum frame and 9mm. LOL

z5tCWA5.jpg
 
All things being equal I'd prefer 9mm most of the time, even with equal mag capacity. I've never seen any evidence that proves to me that 45 is any more effective. Nor any less effective. Assuming the same shot placement with comparable bullets of course. But all of my 1911's are in 45 and to me it just doesn't seem right to have one in any other cartridge. And if I'm going 9mm, it will be in a modern hi-capacity pistol.
 
For a strictly range gun? Pick your poison, both are fun and accurate.

For a field gun? I go 10mm, better penetration on 4 legged threats, but the .45 is my favorite between 9mm and .45 here.

For carry and SD? I actually like the 9mm better in this case. I've never had issues with reliability in my 9mm 1911s, I find it much easier to get more, better and faster hits in any number of drills over the .45.

Easier and requiring less focus to shoot fast and accurate is an advantage that I'd want in a high stress situation like a defensive gun use. I'm not concerned in the slightly bigger holes the .45 will yield as I am more confident in getting more, slightly smaller, hits with the 9mm.

Finally, I really like how the 9mm shoots in an aluminum frame (I know that's a bit off the OP) and dislike the .45 in lightweight 1911s. Full steel 1911s are just too heavy for my back to carry all day long, I've finally discovered, and eliminating nightly back pain is a big perk in my eyes.
 
Mr. Mosin said:
Would one be better off trading the +2 additional capacity of 9x19 for the lesser capacity (but possibly more effective) .45 Automatic ? FMJ or HP is irrelevant, the 9mm is still a small hole, .45 is still a big hole.
Click to expand...
I keep hearing that doctors can't really tell the difference in wounding characteristics between the two. Some anecdotal evidence may exist to back this up, and I'm sure there's plenty that points to 45 being a better stopper.

Bottom line for me is I think a higher capacity gun, 9mm being my minimum, with good ammo is sufficient to save my life. I'm trying to stop a threat from hurting or killing me, that’s all. It seems 9mm is capable of doing that, and since you never know how many attackers you will face, and you may miss a bit, it seems capacity with good marksmanship is a better bet to me.

It may be 6 of one and half dozen of another.
 
Last edited:
All of the major (9mmP, .40 S&W. .45 ACP) centerfire handgun calibers suck. If you want to bring a really effective gun to the fight drag along a rifle or shotgun.

The 1911 was designed going on 120 years ago. It was a great pistol, 120 years ago. It ain’t 120 years ago, there are modern pistols that will run rings around the 1911 by any objective criteria you care to define.

BSW
 
briansmithwins said:
It ain’t 120 years ago, there are modern pistols that will run rings around the 1911 by any objective criteria you care to define.
Click to expand...

Pretty bold claim. I haven't found a "modern" gun that will run rings around a good 1911 trigger yet. Top end CZs can be very nice, but still aren't quite as good to me. But even they are, what, 45 years old?
 
Texas10mm said:
Split the difference. Get a 10mm :)

Is this for a range toy or carry piece?
Click to expand...

In 2020 this is the correct answer. It's not even splitting the difference (unless we're talking capacity, I suppose). The 10mm puts twice the energy on target vs either 9mm or 45acp (it even easily outperforms +p loadings of either) and runs like a sewing machine in the 1911 platform.
 
Does it really matter, the difference between the 45ACP and 9X19mm? Of those whom have replied to this subject, whom of you have actually used one or the other in a antipersonnel application? I have very limited experience in application during my USMC/Viet-Nam days with the 1911A1. As this is written my EDC is a S&W Shield 9X19mm. Its either going to be good enough or it isn't but that's the way its going to be. Situation awareness thus avoidance of stupid people, places, and things is most likely of more importance than if your EDC is a 45ACP or 9X19mm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

F
  • Locked
What's up with the 1911
2 3 4 5
Replies
114
Views
4K
George Hill
G
W
  • Locked
Glock 30 .45 vs. 1911 .45
2
Replies
35
Views
7K
frankge
F
D
  • Locked
The .45 makes a comeback during the war on terrorism
2 3
Replies
74
Views
4K
Harold Mayo
H
el Godfather
  • Locked
1911: Best from the past in present.
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
Girodin
G
K
  • Locked
My .45 conundrum - Glock 30SF vs. 36 vs. 38
2
Replies
38
Views
4K
NG VI
N
Back
Top